Wayne Thayer於 2019年3月30日星期六 UTC+8上午4時48分27秒寫道：
> The BRs require EKUs in leaf TLS certs, but there is no equivalent
> requirement for S/MIME certificates. This leads to confusion such as [1] in
> which certificates that are not intended for TLS or S/MIME fall within the
> scope of our policies.
>
I would like to thank everyone for their constructive input on this
difficult issue. I would also like to thank DarkMatter representatives for
participating in the open, public discussion. I feel that the discussion
has now, after more than 4 months, run its course.
The question that I originally
Dear Wayne,
I fully respect Mozilla's mission and I fully believe that everyone here is
acting in good faith.
That said, I must, in my capacity as a private individual, decry what I
perceive as a dangerous shortsightedness and lack of intellectual rigor
underlying your decision. I do this as
I wanted to supplement my previous email with an observation on how this
decision is already being covered by the same news outlet that are being
cited in the case against DarkMatter.
Reuters wrote this article:
The bug requesting that the existing subordinate CAs be added to OneCRL is
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1564544
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 8:31 AM Wayne Thayer wrote:
> I would like to thank everyone for their constructive input on this
> difficult issue. I would also like to thank
On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 10:31:27 AM UTC-5, Wayne Thayer wrote:
> DarkMatter has argued [3] that their CA business has always been operated
> independently and as a separate legal entity from their security business.
> Furthermore, DarkMatter states that once a rebranding effort is completed,
All,
There is some confusion about disclosure of new intermediate certs that
are issued to subordinate CAs with currently valid audit statements.
Section 5.3.2 of Mozilla's Root Store Policy says: "If the CA has a
currently valid audit report at the time of creation of the certificate,
then
On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 11:23:11 PM UTC+2, Matthew Hardeman wrote:
> Truly horrid organizations and/or individuals passively own all kinds of
> assets. A strong management team that can be trusted to keep commitments to
> sound the alarm if the organization goes off track is one way to
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:50 PM Kathleen Wilson via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> There is some confusion about disclosure of new intermediate certs that
> are issued to subordinate CAs with currently valid audit statements.
>
> Section 5.3.2 of
On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 11:46:05 PM UTC+2, Matthew Hardeman wrote:
> ownership: Francisco Partners. It is difficult for me to see the
> difference, objectively speaking.
agree, but I think Francisco partners was ... rubbing the wrong way, too; and I
think that issue was let go way too
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:52 AM Cynthia Revström via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> My view is a bit different, we have lots of CAs already, I think it is more
> important to be extra secure rather than to take unnecessary risks.
>
A position like this is
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 4:34 PM mono.riot--- via dev-security-policy <
dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> wrote:
> I think it's less about a single person than about an alleged firewalling
> of entities that end up being not firewalled at all, but all owned by the
> same person in the end.
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
